International Free Press Society

Religion of Peace

Archive for the ‘Fight back!’ Category

In Stuttgart, Germany, last week, violent Leftist and Islamic supremacist demonstrators violently menaced anti-jihad activists – giving a sobering picture of where Germany, Europe, and the U.S. as well are headed if we don’t stand up and resolutely defend our freedom now.

Thursday afternoon I spoke in Stuttgart at the invitation of the human rights group Pax Europa. The event was well advertised, and so the thuggish Leftist/Islamic supremacist alliance mobilized and was out in full force.

About a thousand protesters from the frequently violent hard-Left Antifa group showed up, along with around 500 German riot police. “Antifa” stands for “Anti-fascism,” but if any fascism was on display, it was from the “anti-fascists,” who did their best to destroy the Pax Europa event. They were menacing people, starting fights, banging drums, blowing whistles, and chanting Leftist and Communist agitprop slogans. One young man from Antifa came up to me as I was standing right in front of a line of German police and said, “You’re lucky there are so many police here today.” He was not expressing solidarity.

Pax Europa had planned a full program featuring Middle Eastern Christian musicians, a Coptic Christian activist, and others, so as to highlight the hollowness of the Islamic supremacist narrative of Muslim victimhood and anti-jihadist racism. But the police ordered the Pax Europa organizers to drastically reduce the scope of their event. Everyone was restricted to ten minutes only. Several participants opted not to appear, in light of the manifest danger. Antifa people were attacking supporters of Pax Europa. I saw several individuals being chased by rabid Leftist gangs. At least one man went to the hospital.

The police used loudspeakers to call on Antifa twice to disperse, as Pax Europa had lawfully reserved the space for their event. The Antifa people responded only by moving forward, chanting slogans, banging their drums, and holding aloft the usual Leftist kitsch — Che Guevara, the hammer and sickle, the Palestinian flag, signs denouncing Islamophobia, etc. The police moved them back a bit but did not ask them again to disperse, and allowed the Pax Europa event to begin.

It was an incredible din. We had loudspeakers that appeared to be able to reach the considerable crowd behind the protesters, but the Antifa thugs did all they could to drown us out: the drums got louder, the vuvuzelas came out, they were blowing whistles, and of course they were screaming and yelling. They also started throwing things: bottles, ice eggs, excrement and more. One bottle narrowly missed the Coptic activist’s head and crashed onto the stage — other bottles crashed at our feet. Several speakers were hit with eggs. The manure they threw was all over the stage floor.

It was like looking into the pit of hell. Here were young people passionately committed to their cause and believing it to be that of justice and freedom, and they are eager and willing useful idiots for the most radically intolerant ideology on the planet. So when my turn came to speak, I addressed them, and told them just that. I told them they wouldn’t like what happened to them when their friends took power, but by then it would be too late for them.

The menace continued. Antifa burned the truck belonging to the company that set up the stage for Pax Europa’s Thursday rally. Friday night they found out the hotel that the courageous anti-jihad politician René Stadtkewitz was planning to stay in when he came to Stuttgart to announce the founding of the local branch of his new Freedom Party; they reportedly broke the hotel’s windows and painted threatening messages on its walls. Also yesterday, I spoke to a Pax Europa meeting at a location in Stuttgart; Antifa thugs found out the location after the meeting had ended, and stormed and surrounded the place. Thirty-six were arrested.

But it is not too late for Europe. I spoke at Stadtkewitz’s Freedom Party event on Sunday, and found a crowd made all the more resolute and determined by the violent intimidation to which they had been subjected. They realize that freedom hangs in the balance today in Germany, and in Europe and the U.S. as well, and they’re prepared to take a stand.

That was a great source of hope. Saturday morning I had the great honor of meeting with Susanne Zeller-Hirzel, one of the last surviving members of the White Rose, the nonviolent resistance movement that worked against Hitler’s regime in Nazi Germany in 1942 and 1943. We discussed numerous parallels between the Nazi era in Germany and the advance of Islamic supremacism today — as we saw in Stuttgart Thursday, Nazis and Islamic supremacists are remarkably similar in their taste for using force to shut down opponents they can’t out-argue.

It’s time for the White Rose to flower again in Germany. And as Islamic supremacism continues to advance in the U.S. also, we are not far behind.

WHEN I TRY to educate my fellow non-Muslims about basic Islamic doctrine, they often automatically assume I hate Muslims. They don’t have a way of reconciling my criticism with any model of the world they are familiar with, and the only way to understand me is to conclude I must just be a “hater” or have a prejudice against Arabs or Muslims. But I have found some success in clearing this up by explaining how I look at the whole subject. Something like this…

I think of Muslims as being divided into three categories. There are those who understand the doctrine well and believe in it and are committed to following its dictates. This is a relatively small percentage, although nobody knows how small. I would guess it is somewhere between five and twenty-five percent of Muslims. That’s a pretty big range, I know, but like I said, it’s hard to know for sure.

The second category of Muslims are those who know about the doctrine but secretly reject parts of it. They do it secretly because it says in the doctrine they are not allowed to reject any of it, and also because in many parts of the world it is physically dangerous to reject any part of Islamic doctrine publicly. I believe this group is another ten to twenty percent of Muslims. That’s just a guess.

The third category is the biggest. These are Muslims who don’t know what their own doctrine says. They grew up Muslim, their parents were Muslim, and they never thought of having a choice about being Muslim, but they’ve never been interested enough to find out what Islamic doctrine says.

With an understanding of the three categories, I can now explain that I do not hate “Muslims.” What bothers me is that people in the first category — the true believers — are successfully exploiting the third and very large category of ignorant Muslims, and successfully fooling most of the non-Muslims.

And even that doesn’t bother me as much as the fact that the true believing Muslims are successfully exploiting and fooling so many people simply because people refuse to look. It’s not like the information is hard to find. The ignorant Muslims have not taken the time to explore their own doctrines enough to accept or reject them. And the ignorant non-Muslims essentially refuse to look. They make assumptions instead, and self-righteously defend their assumptions. But the doctrines are widely published and abundantly available. That’s what really bothers me.

I feel like Winston Churchill must have felt during the 1930’s. He read Mein Kampf. The book was available for anyone to read. Churchill was trying to get people to simply look, but for the most part people did not want to look for fear of what they would find. What a frustrating, angering situation. That’s why I appear frustrated and angry sometimes when I’m talking to people. It is not hatred toward Muslims. It is anger at our ridiculous situation: A group is actively working toward a terrible goal which has been widely published in the open, but so many people do not want to know about it. Under the circumstances, I think intense frustration is a normal response.

Anyway, when I explain it this way, I think people better understand my passion for the subject and see it differently, and that helps them listen to whatever else I have to say. It prevents them from “shutting their ears,” so to speak. It prevents them from just dismissing what I have to say (because they won’t listen to “hatemongers” or prejudice people).

If you feel the same way, try explaining it to people when you can see they are misunderstanding your passion for the subject. And tell us how it worked (or didn’t work) on Talk About Islam Among Non-Muslims.

Consequently, the ideology of Islam MUST be defeated. It must be consigned to the dustbin of history along with those other vicious totalitarianisms – Nazism and Communism. The alternative is our extermination as a civilisation, and the whole world being plunged into an endless theocratic Dark Age.

There can be no violent solution
In an age of nuclear weapons, the option of exterminating Islam the way we exterminated Nazism – by world war – is unthinkable. Apart from anything else, there is no guarantee that the West could win an all-out World War III against Islam. Our infrastructure, government and military have been too far infiltrated by jihadists. There would be thousands of Fort Hood style massacres of our troops if a war broke out between Dar al-Harb and Dar al-Islam, not to mention massive sabotage of military and civilian infrastructure and violent intifadas in Muslim-dominated cities throughout the West.

This is not to say that the Muslims would win a World War either. The victors of WWIII would be well-organised authoritarian states with small Muslim populations who would be prepared to be ruthless in keeping their Muslims in order. China springs to mind.

A new cold war
The only option for defeating Islam is to undermine it in the same way we undermined communism – by a slow process of ideological warfare.

Altering the spiritual and material cost/benefits of being a Muslim
Like other religions, Islam promises spiritual benefits from being a member of the cult – namely avoidance of hell and entry into paradise, which in Islam’s case is a well-appointed brothel in the sky. But unlike other religions, Islam also offers material benefits in the here and now, for example immunity to normal laws, superior status to all non-Muslims (dhimmis) and sanctified rape and pillage where the victims are non-Muslims.

Adherence to any belief system usually has two components – faith and conformity. In Islam, as with communism, the forces of conformity are very strong and are imposed with murderous ruthlessness. Nevertheless, once the faith has gone, the habits of conformity will become an empty shell, which will eventually implode.

So we need to attack Islam on both fronts, by demonstrating that the spiritual benefits of the ‘faith’ are bogus – Islam is confidence trick set up by a ruthless megalomaniac, we also need to decrease the benefits of conformity by increasing the costs and reducing benefits of being a Muslim in the material world here and now.

Destroying and replacing Muslim beliefs
Islam may appear hard, but it is also brittle. A small crack anywhere in the structure can spread throughout. Islam claims that the Koran is the literal word of God, which was dictated to, but not written by, Mohammed.

This paranoid, hypersensitive defensiveness and outrage at criticism are not the reactions of a confident belief system, but of an information-control cult. These reactions are evidence of an attempt to protect a fatal vulnerability, an attempt to cover an Achilles heel.

Buddhism has philosophical and yogic foundations which are claimed to be independently reproducible by anyone who follows the Buddha’s reasoning and instructions (‘Four seals of Dharma’ ). “Anyone who accepts these four seals, even independently of Buddha’s teachings, even never having heard the name Shakyamuni Buddha, can be considered to be on the same path as he. ”

If you destroy the credibility of Mohammed, you destroy Islam.
The primary target of the propaganda counterjihad must be Mohammed. If Mohammed is revealed as an imposter, a fraud and a conman then the Koran and Hadiths are worthless raving and ramblings, mere sound and fury signifying nothing. Muslims revere Mohammed because very few know the truth about him. . The effectiveness of the direct attack on Mohammed has been demonstrated by father Zakaria Botros, a Christian Priest who broadcasts the truth about Mohammed, based on the Muslims’ own scriptures:

“It’s not enough that al-Qaeda has called Fr Zakaria Botros “one of the most wanted infidels in the world,” issuing a 60 million dollar bounty on his head, or that popular Arabic magazines call him “Islam’s public enemy #1”; now, as expected, CAIR is getting in on the action, calling for a “national alert” — as in umma alert, eerily reminiscent of a fatwa — against him. Apparently his last few shows dealing with Muhammad’s questionable sexual habits, including necrophilia – are irking CAIR.

Why do radical Muslims, such as CAIR, hate — and fear — Zakaria Botros so? The problem Muslims have with Fr Botros is that they simply cannot refute him: everything he says — no matter how scandalizing to Islam — is always based on, often revered, Islamic sources. Moreover, Fr Botros rarely makes any claims about Islam: he only exposes; he only raises questions and then invites Islam’s ulema to respond and “clarify” the matter. However, as this story indicates, their response is only to have him censored — or, for the more radical, killed.” http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/01/father-zakaria-botros-on-cairs-radar.html

Providing an alternative to Islam
The Muslims who have abandoned Islam will need somewhere else to go. Some will abandon religion altogether and become secularists, but as most people need some sort of religious belief in their life an alternative must be provided. This means that apostates (people who have converted out of Islam) will need protection from the murderous intentions of their former co-religionists. Attempts to intimidate apostates must be treated as serious hate-crimes and punished with the utmost severity.

Of the two ‘universal’ religions – Buddhism and Christianity – the most suitable Islam-substitute is probably Christianity and is better fitted to Muslims’ intellectual capacities than the more philosophical Buddhism. The churches must therefore be encouraged to minister to Muslims, protect apostates, and even set up covert online churches where Muslims may privately convert to Christianity without taking the risks of ‘coming out’ by declaring their true faith while thy are still vulnerable.

Destroying Mohammed’s street cred among ‘jihadi cool’ youths. ‘Jihadi cool’ Muslim youths in the west are a thuggish, predatory and parasitic criminal underclass of gangstas. Our normal standards of rationality and morality do not apply to them. They are also severely inbred which means that most of them are of low intelligence if not actually psychopathically insane. They have no loyalty to their country of residence nor any intention of obeying its ‘man-made laws’, just an arrogant sense of unearned entitlement and the Allah-given right to rape and pillage at will.

Consequently, the psychopath Muhammad is in many respects an ideal role-model for them, and his robberies, rapes and massacres (especially of the Jews) are seen as ‘cool’ by most Muslim teenagers. Terrorists such as Bin Laden are idolised by Muslim youth. Mohammed’s sexual perversions are also widely approved of, as Muslim communities are the only ones in which paedophilia is an acceptable pastime. Many young Muslim boys are involved in pimping kuffar children by befriending them before handing them over to older ‘cousins’ for prostitution.

The Muslim mind is pre-rational, predatory and tribal. Appeals to reason are no use because they believe that faith is superior to reason, and the fact that the Koran is full of contradictions doesn’t bother them in the slightest. Islam hasn’t had an enlightenment and is still in the Dark Ages. In fact, the cult justifies itself in terms of a power-structure maintained by physical threats and lynch-mobs rather than reason or spirituality.

Appeals to normal human decency as an antidote to Islam are pointless. Muslims believe it is their duty to kill, maim, rape, swindle and rob the kaffir (unbeliever) – this is an intrinsic part of their cult. The ‘Golden Rule’ – ‘do unto others as you would they do unto you’ , does not extend beyond the boundaries of the Ummah-tribe. So, for example, displaying pictures of the aftermath of Muslim atrocities is a waste of time – this will actually encourage them. Many Muslim men and boys get sexually aroused by watching jihad-snuff videos of kaffirs being tortured and beheaded.

Pointing out that Muslims are useless parasites on the West is also not going to make them change their ways, because that’s what they are unashamedly here for.

The way to get at them, is to damage their inflated and fragile egos. Because Muslims are at a tribal state of pre-civilised development, they venerate the totems of their tribe, and will go into tantrums if these are ‘disrespected’. Unstable adolescents are constantly seeking ‘significance’ and ‘respect’.

No streetwise adolescent delinquent likes to be conned. So if you can also show Mohammed as the conman he was, then this is likely to have a far greater effect on ‘jihadi cool’ young Muslims than his violence and criminality (which they admire). They may approve of him conning his contemporaries, they may approve of him duping the hated kuffars with taqiyya, but they will be very sure not to let him con themselves. More at http://crombouke.blogspot.com/2010/01/exorcising-mohammed-conman-from-minds.html

Removing the benefits and increasing the costs of being Muslim
The second line of attack on Islam should be to make make belonging to the Ummah costly and unattractive in a material sense.
At present Muslims are pandered to and given special privileges just because they are Muslims. They believe that ‘Islam must dominate and must not be dominated’. For example:

The Strong Horse effect
All pandering, appeasement, legal immunities and special privileges contribute to what Bin Laden calls the ‘strong horse effect’, which makes them confident of winning the Stealth Jihad.

– To reduce our dependence on Muslim oil we should encourage the development of rail transport as it is inherently more efficient than road (due to the much lower rolling resistance of steel wheel on steel rail ) and can be electrified to run on other fuels. We should also develop our coal and nuclear industries.

I am delighted to be here in Paris, the birthplace of modern European secular governance. And I am especially delighted to have been invited here by Gandalf, who founded the Alliance to Stop Sharia. Gandalf has been instrumental in shifting the focus of the European Counterjihad from Islam as a religion to the evils of sharia law.

Have you been accused of being an Islamophobe? A nazi? A xenophobe? A bigot? A misunderstander of Islam (copyright R. Spencer)? Have you been verbally attacked by well-meaning friends who belong either to the Leftist/Liberal spectrum and believe in the Religion of Respect and Anything Goes, or who in principle agree with you, but are sooo very afraid for you and suggest that you stop what you’re doing to stay alive. (What does that tell us about the Religion of Peace?)

I think I can safely assume that most of you, if not all, have at one point or another been subjected to some or all of the aforementioned accusations. I can certainly testify to that. But I can also tell you that I have been hauled into court to face trial for saying what I believe is the truth; a truth that many, especially those of the ruling elite, do not like to hear. Sadly, it seems that in a discussion, when one side has no real argument, he or she resorts to personal attacks. “This woman [as if I didn’t have a name!], she is a hate preacher. She can’t say that! She may be right, but she can’t say that!” Can’t say what? That sharia law is contrary to any of our secular laws? That its legal provisions include gender apartheid as well as killing of those who leave Islam or exercise the right to free speech. That sharia prescribes amputation of limbs and crucifixion even though Article 5 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights postulates that “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” Well, guess what? That is precisely what was eventually found in the charges!

In fall 2009, I was asked by the largest Austrian opposition party to hold a three-part seminar on the topic of Islam and the Islamization of Europe. I did this by quoting from the Quran, the hadith, the sunna. I also quoted well-known Muslim politicians like Erdogan, Ghadafi, Arafat, or the former Algerian prime minister. Little did I or the attendants know at the time that a young journalist had infiltrated and recorded the first two seminars without my knowledge. The left-wing magazine then decided to report me to the authorities, who in turn charged me with incitement to hatred. Let me quote the relevant paragraph:

By virtue of § 283 of the StGB, a person is deemed culpable of incitement:

(1) who incites or instigates in a manner liable to jeopardise public order an inimical act against a church or religious community established in the country or against a group determined by their affiliation to such a church or religious community, or to a race, people, tribe or state, or

(2) who agitates against or insults in a manner defamatory to human dignity or endeavours to condemn one of the groups defined in para. (1).

The crime is liable to a term of imprisonment of up to two years.
The outcry among the ruling elite in Austria was ear-splitting. High-ranked politicians, bishops, rabbis, and imams were asked to comment about the contents of a seminar they had never attended. A well-known Muslim university professor, asked by the magazine to analyze some of my controversial statements, even came to the conclusion that I am just like Osama Bin Laden!

In a matter of hours, my personal life was turned upside down. Some of my friends distanced themselves from by asking me to stay away from gatherings where Muslims may have shown up. The media completely ignored me and found the story of a Kosovar family blackmailing the government into granting them humanitarian asylum, after the umpteenth denial of the same, more interesting and captivating. “We do not see the need to report the idiocies of this woman [again, no name],” one liberal left-wing newspaper answered a curious enquirer. What does it matter that the Kosovar family broke the law and that I merely quoted the Quran? You can’t say that!

Interestingly enough, instead of silencing me, the magazine’s questionable actions have made me popular. All of a sudden, many people were outraged by what had happened to me and wanted to hear my side of the story. However, no one in Austria wanted to hear me; it was the Americans who were shocked, which was not surprising given the provisions of the 1st amendment of the US Constitution guaranteeing absolute freedom of speech, something we Europeans are in sore need of. I was invited to speak at the launch of the Freedom Defense Initiative, at the National Conference of ACT! for America, both in Washington DC. I spoke in Berlin at a rally for the Citizens’ Movement Pax Europa, as well as at the European Freedom Initiative rally in Amsterdam. The Danish Free Press Society in Copenhagen wanted to hear my take on freedom of speech. Just two weeks ago, I conveyed to my Israeli hosts the importance of Israel in the fight against Islamization. And today I am here in Paris to tell you about my trial. I was not silenced, nor will they ever succeed in silencing me!

By November 28, 2010, the member states of the European Union were required to implement an innocuous-sounding legal provision known as the “Framework decision on combating racism and xenophobia”, or, more fully, the “Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008 on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law.” According to the final article of the Framework Decision, “Member States shall take the necessary measures to comply with the provisions of this Framework Decision by 28 November 2010.”

Why does this matter to the cause of free speech in Europe?

If you read the full text of the Framework Decision (which may be found in the legislative section of the EU’s website), you will learn that “Each Member State shall take the measures necessary… to ensure that the following intentional conduct is punishable”. Such “intentional conduct” includes “conduct which is a pretext for directing acts against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin.”

Based on what has recently happened to Geert Wilders and me — and earlier to Gregorius Nekschot, Jussi Halla-aho, and numerous others — we can all guess who will be punished under this provision of the Framework Decision: those who criticize Islam.

It was not until October that a court date was set for my case. I had to discover this fact in the press — in NEWS, the same left-wing magazine that brought the original complaint against me. I was not officially notified of my hearing date until several days later.

The evidence used against me at my trial several weeks ago was a transcript of a tape of my lecture, provided to the court by the same socialist magazine. It included words that were not spoken by me, and words that were not spoken in public, which therefore were not a violation of the law.

But my case is not really about the law. It is a political trial, and like the trials of Geert Wilders and Jussi Halla-aho, it is intended to silence someone who speaks out against the barbaric nature of sharia law.

Above all else, it is intended to discourage anyone who might consider following in my footsteps. The oligarchs who rule Europe are determined to prevent any frank discussion among their citizens of Islam and its legal doctrines.

These are the methods of a totalitarian state.

They are more successful than those of the Nazis and the Fascists and the Communists because they are accomplished quietly and peacefully, with no need for concentration camps or gulags or mass graves or the shot in the back of the neck in the middle of the night.

They are surgical strikes executed via our legal systems, and they are quite effective. Between the summary punishment carried out against Theo Van Gogh and the EU Framework Decision applied though our courts, there is no room left for us to maneuver.

We are systematically being silenced.

I am not a victim. I intend to stand up for what is right. I will defend what needs to be defended. Above everything else, I will exercise my God-given right to speak freely about what is happening. Freedom of speech is the single most important freedom we possess.

I am doing this for my daughter, and for her children, for those who will have to live in the world we are now preparing for them. I am doing what our grandparents should perhaps have done during the 1930s, when their own freedoms were under threat.

This is our time. This cup will not pass from us.

I am reminded of a passage in J.R.R. Tolkien’s famous trilogy, The Lord of the Rings.

It is an exchange between Frodo the hobbit and Gandalf the wizard, and it concerns the perilous quest on which Frodo and his friends have been sent.

Frodo says: “I wish it need not have happened in my time.”

Gandalf responds: “So do I, and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.”

It is time for us to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.
In speaking these words, I might be subject to arrest. I could be charged under the provisions of the Framework Decision, and extradited to the country that charged me using a European Arrest Warrant, escorted by the European Gendarmerie.

This is not an imaginary scenario; it is a very real possibility.

It is true that only a few people are likely to undergo such an ordeal. But it only takes a few people.

How many people have to endure what Mr. Wilders and I are enduring before everyone else gets the message?

How many examples have to be set before the rest of the European population understands the new rules, and is cowed into submission?

And we must remember to whom they will be submitting in the end. They will be submitting to our successors in Europe. They will be submitting to our replacements.

We must remember that the word for submission in Arabic isIslam.

When there are enough Muslims living in Europe — and it doesn’t have to be a majority of the population, just somewhere around fifteen or twenty percent — we will be living under Islamic law, and not the laws that presently govern us.

We will no longer enjoy what constitutional rights remain to us now. Our rights will be completely prescribed and delimited by sharia. Women will become the virtual chattel of men. Christians and Jews will be driven out or forced to convert to Islam. Atheists and homosexuals will be killed.

The European Union would consider these words to be “hate speech”. Under the Framework Decision, they would be classified as “racism and xenophobia”, and I could be prosecuted for saying them.

But they are in fact the simple truth.

Anyone can verify them by studying history. Anyone who chooses can read the Koran and the hadith and the Sunna of the Prophet.

Widely available official treatises on Islamic law confirm that my description is not “hate speech”, but a plain and accurate reading of the tenets of Islamic law.

It has become obvious that to tell the truth about Islam is now considered “incitement to religious hatred”.

It is now clear that non-Muslims who reveal the tenets of sharia law to the public are “denigrating religious teachings”.

If we meekly accept these rules, then we are acquiescing in the imposition of sharia law in our own nations. And I, for one, will not sit silently while this happens.

I don’t want my daughter to live under sharia.

Our time is short. If you and I do not envision an Islamic future for ourselves, then we must speak out now.

If we wish to preserve the right to speak and publish freely, then we must exercise it now.

Self-Taught

November 10, 2010

One of the many attacks that Muslims and their apologists make against their opponents is that Kafir (non-Muslim) critics are self-educated. They say the only way to understand Islam is to ask a Muslim or a university trained “expert”. What could be wrong with this advice?

Let’s use an actual problem; today Sharia law is being used to show how Islam works at the political level and how it is a disaster for our civilization.

Sharia is such a horror show for Kafirs that Islam and its apologists say many things to draw attention away from it. They say that Sharia is an antique from the year 1400 and no one really uses such an old text (an example is the Traveller, see below). In short, it is a relic of history; it doesn’t really apply today. Don’t worry.

A professor says that the Sharia is not really important; Sharia is flexible; it changes; there are different schools; no nation is actually ruled by Sharia. Sharia is nothing to worry about. So says the “expert”. This judgment is delivered by a “university expert”. We know this is not true. We know that Sharia is a driving force in Islam. How could an “expert” be wrong?

How do we determine the true nature of Islam? How do we prove anything about Islam? How can you refute an “expert”?

A classic Sharia text, Reliance of the Traveller, has no less than four high scholars, who say that in 1991 that the Reliance is to the benefit of the Muslim community and the path of Muslims today. The university experts dismiss the Sharia as being irrelevant today. Who are we to believe, the professors or the prominent Islamic scholars?

This question can be answered by the fact that all Sharia is based on Koran and Sunna. Sunna is pure Mohammed and Koran is the delivered by Mohammed, so we can say that Mohammed is the only standard for truth in Islam.

If an expert gives advice about Islam or Sharia that agrees with Mohammed, the expert is right. If the expert disagrees with Mohammed then the expert is wrong. Hence, the only way to know Islam is to know Mohammed. This translates into knowing Hadith (Traditions) and Sira (life of Mohammed). If you would read Hadith and Sira (which are well translated), you would not need an expert, you would be an expert.

However, the experts denigrate any knowledge based on the actual reading of Islamic texts. Sir Isaac Newton was self-educated about physics. Einstein was self-educated in relativity. Indeed, people who are self-educated in their area of advancement have done the greatest work in humanity. However, for you to be self-educated is an act of bigotry.

The highest goal of education is that the students will be able to educate themselves after school. The elites do not want any ideas that do not come from “experts”. You might get ideas that are not elitist approved. The elites all favor Islam and never advance any critical ideas.

We have to educate ourselves because the universities are bankrupt on the subject of Islam. They do not allow any teaching about Islam that is critical and uses critical thought from the standpoint of the Kafir. No debate is allowed. Only Muslims and dhimmi apologists are allowed to speak about Islam. Anyone who disagrees based on their own understanding is a bigot.

The first European universities were based on the study of authorities. One day in class the discussion was about how many teeth a horse had. Aristotle said one number and Galen said another. The way to resolve this was to establish who was the greatest man. While the argument about whether Aristotle was a greater scholar than Galen went on, a student went out into the courtyard and counted the number of teeth in a tethered horse. When he returned with the number, the teacher beat him. Knowledge that was based on experimental data and self-education was forbidden. That is the nature of the academic “authorities” and the media today.

To know which expert is right is not a matter of college credentials or religion, but knowing which expert agrees with Koran and Sunna. Islam begins with Mohammed and ends with Mohammed.

Get to know Mohammed. To know Mohammed is to be an expert. Be self-taught and read the foundational books-Koran, Sira and Hadith.

Note: Don’t think that you can pick up any biography of Mohammed and get to know the true man. Almost every biography of Mohammed is whitewashed. The Sira (Ishaq’s Sira Rasul Allah can be found in Mohammed and the Unbelievers) is the gold standard. If the bio does not include the annihilation and subjugation of the Jews, torture, slavery, plots, raids, assassinations, battles, secret agents and spies, then it is not a complete biography. Mohammed’s rise to power included an event of violence on the average of every 6 weeks for the last 9 years of his life.Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam
Permalink
copyright (c) CBSX, LLC, www.politicalislam.com

FOR THE MOST PART, debating is frustrating. If your objective is to change your opponent’s mind, debating is a largely useless and futile exercise. If you’re debating in public, that’s a different story, because you can change the audiences’ minds if you debate well. But one-on-one, debate is an impotent weapon in the war of ideas.

You know people who believe Islam is a religion of peace and that you are an Islamophobic bigot for thinking otherwise, and you would like to change their minds. If you try to do it with debate, if you try to do it by answering arguments with arguments, no matter how good you are at arguing, no matter how many facts are in your favor, no matter how articulately you put your message across, the odds are a hundred to one against you succeeding.

I’m sure you’ve already discovered the painful and frustrating truth of this. Back and forth, right and wrong, will not work. You cannot penetrate.

What we need is transformational dialog. Not mere debate. We need influence, not mere argument. We need to effectively persuade, not just get peoples’ hackles up and let them dig themselves deeper into their position.

The following is a list of ideas you can use — ideas you can add to your attempts to educate people about Islam. You already have “argument” in your arsenal. Below are additional weapons you can use. We’ll be adding more articles to this list in the near future, but we can start with these:

Let’s not get stuck answering argument for argument in one-on-one debates. Presenting a logical, factual argument to answer an argument is a relatively weak tool because the other side of the debate often uses it equally well. We have more effective tools at our disposal, and we should learn to use them to our advantage. Failure is not an option. We must open the minds of our fellow non-Muslims and we must do it quickly.

Sunday, October 24

GEERT WILDERS is well-known to most counterjihadists, but Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff’s case is very similar. Like Geert, she faces trial for reporting factual information about Islam. Her “crime” was to conduct public seminars in which she described Islamic doctrine, quoted from the Quran, and explained the dangers of Islamic encroachment.

Like Geert, Elisabeth has been charged with “hate speech” for her words (read an example of what she actually said). Unlike Geert, however, Elisabeth is a private citizen, a wife, and the mother of a small child. She lacks the major resources necessary to defend herself against the well-funded organs of the state which seek to persecute her.

Elisabeth will go on trial in Vienna on November 23rd, in what is clearly a political action intended to silence anyone who dissents against the prevailing multicultural orthodoxy.

Her European and North American supporters have created Elisabeth’s Voice to ensure she is not silenced. By appealing for financial aid, they intend to ensure that her defense is well-funded. By appealing for publicity, they intend to ensure that her case is well-known, not just in Austria and the rest of Europe, but across the entire Western world.

Americans may think Elisabeth’s plight is uniquely European, and has nothing to do with them. But make no mistake about it: the same repression is on its way to the United States of America. As the recent cases of Molly Norris, Juan Williams, and Derek Fenton demonstrate, free speech may already be taken away by non-juridical means. Dissent is even now being silenced in schools and on college campuses, and politically incorrect expression is cause for dismissal from both public and private employment.

The same types of “hate speech” laws that were used against Elisabeth in Austria are being prepared for the United States through the work of the United Nations. At the initiative of the Organization of the Islamic Conference — the largest voting block in the United Nations — the UN is on the verge of requiring all member states to pass laws criminalizing “the defamation of religions, including Islam.”

Barack Obama has indicated his support for the UN’s proposed resolution. Time is running out for all of us. If we don’t stand up now for people like Geert Wilders, Ezra Levant, Mark Steyn, and Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, there will be no one to stand up for us later, when our turn comes.

How can you stand up for Elisabeth? Show your support. Contribute to Elisabeth’s defense fund (which is not under her control, and may only be used to pay her lawyers) visit the In Defense of Free Speech website. You can also get updates on her case at that website.

And we can each spend some time publicizing Elisabeth’s case. Write a letter to your local paper. Make comments on blogs. Post something on Facebook about it. Let people know what’s happening. Share the video below; share articles, talk about it to your friends and family. In both Elisabeth’s and Geert’s cases, this is the leading edge of freedom: Either the legal verdicts will be in favor of freedom of speech, or the verdicts will be in favor of limiting freedom of speech to accommodate Islamic sensitivities. Let freedom ring. Let’s make freedom ring!